This
matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Rodney
Demetrius Golden's (“Golden”) failure to
comply with the Court's Order of August 14, 2017, (doc.
9), and his failure to prosecute this action. For the
following reasons, I RECOMMEND that the
Court DISMISS Golden's action
without prejudice for failure to follow the
Court's directive and failure to prosecute.[1] I further
RECOMMEND that the Court
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE
this case and DENY Golden leave to appeal
in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

On
November 29, 2016, Golden, who is currently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia, filed
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Doc. 1.) Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
on August 9, 2017. (Doc. 8.) On August 14, 2017, the Court
issued an Order directing Golden to file any objections to
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss within fourteen (14) days.
(Doc. 9.) The Court specifically advised Golden that, if he
failed to respond, the Court would presume that he does not
oppose dismissal of this action. (Id.) Despite this
warning, Golden has entirely failed to respond to
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, Golden has not
made any filings in this case since filing his Petition on
June 28, 2017. (Doc. 1.)

DISCUSSION

The
Court must now determine how to address Golden's failure
to comply with this Court's Orders, failure to respond to
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and failure to prosecute
this action. For the reasons set forth below, I
RECOMMEND that the Court
DISMISS Golden's Petition and
DENY him leave to appeal in forma
pauperis.

It is
true that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute
is a “sanction . . . to be utilized only in extreme
situations” and requires that a court “(1)
conclud[e] a clear record of delay or willful contempt
exists; and (2) mak[e] an implicit or explicit finding that
lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Thomas v.
Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 170 F.App'x 623,
625-26 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Morewitz v. West of Eng.
Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62
F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Taylor v.
Spaziano, 251 F.App'x 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007)
(citing Morewitz, 62 F.3d at 1366). By contrast,
dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute
is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore, courts
are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this
manner. Taylor, 251 F.App'x at 619; see also
Coleman, 433 F.App'x at 719; Brown, 205
F.App'x at 802-03.

While
the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with
caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is
warranted. See Coleman, 433 F.App'x at 719
(upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to
prosecute, where plaintiff did not respond to court order to
supply defendant's current address for purpose of
service); Brown, 205 F.App'x at 802-03
(upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to
prosecute, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to
file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that
noncompliance could lead to dismissal).

Despite
the Court advising Golden of his obligation to respond to
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and the consequences for
failing to respond, Golden has not filed any opposition to
Respondent's Motion. Additionally, with Golden not having
taken any action in this case for nearly three months, he has
failed to diligently prosecute his claims.

Thus,
the Court should DISMISS Golden's
Section 2241 Petition, (doc. 1), without
prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to
follow this Court's Orders.

II.
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
Court should also deny Golden leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Though Golden has, of course, not yet filed a
notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address that
issue in the Court&#39;s order of dismissal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal
is ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.